法官错案责任追究的法理分析

【作者】 朱崇坤；

【导师】 林喆；

【作者基本信息】 中共中央党校 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 错案问题是我国目前社会尤其是司法界较为关注的热点问题之一。在司法领域出现错案的新闻报道经常出现，社会上要求防范错案并追究错案责任的呼声不断，各级法院系统为提升司法公信力也在不断出台法官错案责任追究制度。但是这一制度无论是在理论界还是在实践领域均存在较大争议。为此笔者在本文中对该问题从法理的角度进行了深入探讨，分析了我国目前追究法官错案责任的可行性与必要性。同时，对于我国目前法官错案责任追究制度也进行了适当分析，并针对法官责任追究的制度建设，提出了自己的建议。本文第一章对法官错案与法官错案责任进行了概括介绍。错案一词在我国并非严格意义上的法律概念，因为没有任何法律层面的规定对错案做出明确界定。但在我国的司法实践或社会生活领域，错案一词却被广泛使用。纵观对错案的不同定义，大体上可以将错案分为两类，一类是广义上的错案，系指公安机关、检察机关、法院系统的工作人员在案件的侦查、起诉、审判以及执行过程中，违反相关的程序性及实体性法律规定，导致案件的受理、处理、决定、裁判以及裁决发生错误的情况。另一类是狭义上的错案，系指法院的审判人员在案件审判过程中，错误地认定事实或适用法律，造成裁判结论出现错误的案件。本文分析的即是狭义错案。本文的第二章介绍了目前理论界在法官错案责任追究方面存在的争议。当前理论界的主流观点是，不应当追究法官的错案责任，因为法官的判决不存在“唯一正确的判断”，其理论依据主要集中于三个方面：法律规定的不确定性、事实的不确定性以及推理标准的不确定性。正是由于前述三个方面的不确定性，才导致法官的判决不可能存在“唯一正确的判断”。“唯一正确的判断”与错案相对，没有“唯一正确的判断”何谈错案？以此为基础，不同意追究法官错案责任者进一步指出了当前我国现有的法官错案责任追究制度存在的几方面缺陷：价值取向偏差、理念上形而上学以及归责原则错误等。此外，针对法官错案责任追究制度，反对者还指出追究法官错案责任会产生如下负面作用：抑制法官的积极性；违背司法活动规律，制约司法作用发挥；造成更严重的司法不公，滋生司法腐败。本文第三章，对能否追究法官的错案责任进行了可行性分析。该章是本文的重点章节。在本章中首先分析了法官裁判是否存在“唯一正确的判断”这一法理学界争议已久的问题，系统介绍了法律形式主义、法社会学、实用主义法学、自由主义法学、现实主义法学、新分析法学以及新自然法学对司法确定性的观点。在此基础上，对司法的确定性进行了深入分析，探讨了法律与司法确定性的意义以及司法确定性在现实中面临的困惑。在前述分析的基础之上，笔者提出，在司法裁判领域，完全确定的司法裁判结论是不存在的，只存在相对确定的裁判结论。这种相对确定的裁判结论即为法律共同体的共识。法律共同体的共识也不可能存在唯一正确的答案，但这种共识却存在相对一致的领域。如果法官的裁判结论与这个相对一致的范围不一致，则法官的裁判即为错案。本文第四章在分析追究法官错案责任可行性的基础上，首先论述了追究法官错案责任的正当性。深入分析了我国目前法官错案产生的原因，其中既有法律文化、法官素质方面的原因，同时也涉及我国目前法官责任追究制度方面的原因。接着，又论述了追究法官错案责任的因素考量，从理论依据、司法因素、社会因素以及政治因素等角度分析了追究法官错案责任的必要性与重要性。本文的第五章主要涉及如何完善目前我国的错案追究制度。首先介绍了世界主要国家当前采用的法官责任追究制度，其中包括美国、德国以及日本是如何追究法官责任的，内容涉及法官责任追究的理由、主体、程序以及处理方式等。接着，在该章中分析了目前我国在法官错案责任追究制度方面存在的问题。针对这些存在的问题，最后就我国目前法官错案责任追究制度的改进与完善提出了自己的建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Wrongful conviction is one of the hot topics that draw attention of the society,especially in the judicial circles. The wrongful conviction made by the judges arefrequently reported in the media, while at the same time, the courts at different levelsare formulating new regulations to claim responsibilities for the wrongfulconvictions so as to increase the judicial credibility. However, such kinds ofregulations have caused great controversy in both theoretical and practical sector. Inthis paper, the writer will analyze this issue from the perspective of jurisprudence,illustrating the feasibility and necessity for claiming responsibilities for the wrongfulconviction made by the judges. At the same time, the writer anaylizes in a properway the responsibility claim systems for wrongful conviction in China and provieshis suggestions for the improvement of such regulations.In the first chapter, the writer provides a general description of the wrongfulconviction and responsibilities arising therefrom. Strictly speaking, wrongfulconviction is not a standard legal concept, for there is no specific legal regulationthat clearly defines this concept. However, in the judicial practice and social life, theconcept of wrongful conviction is widely mentioned. Based on the differentdefinitions, wrongful conviction can be divided into two categories, the first one isthe broad definition, in which the wrongful conviction refers to cases wronglyhandled by the judiciary staffs in the course of case acceptance, trial and execution.During such courses, the judiciary staffs will breach the procedural law andsubstantive law to make wrong decisions, judgment and treatment of cases. Suchcases include the wrongful conviction made by the staffs from the police,Procuratorate and the Court in the course of investigation, prosecution, trial andexecution of cases. Another one is the narrow definition, in which the wrongfulconviction refers to the cases misjudged by the judges by breaching the substantivelaw to make wrong decisions in determining facts and application of law during thetrial of cases. In this paper, focus will be put on the wrongful conviction in thenarrow sense.In the second chapter, the writer elaborates on the controversies over affixingresponsibilities for wrongful conviction. The prevailing point is that noresponsibilities shall be affixed for wrongful conviction, for there is no “sole rightdecision” for the case judgment. Such theory is based on the uncertainty of law,uncertainty of facts and uncertainty of legal reasoning. Just due to such uncertainties,there is no “sole right decision” for the judgement made by the judges. Wrongfulconviction are corresponding to “sole right decision”, without “sole right decision”,there shall be no wrongful conviction. The opponents who are against affixingresponsibilities for wrongful conviction further point out that the current regulationaffixing responsibilities for the wrongful conviction have the following shortcoming,i.e. wrong value-orientation, metaphysics of idea and wrong principles in liabilityaffixation. If responsibilities will have to be affixed for the judges, it will have thefollowing adverse effects: dampening the initiatives of the judges, running against the judicial rules, restricting the effect of judicial activities, causing more seriousunjust and judicial corruption.In the third chapter, the writer analyzes the feasibility for affixing responsibilitiesfor the wrongful conviction made by the judges. This chapter is the most importantpart of the paper. In this chapter, the writer first analyzes the controversial issue ofwhether there is a “sole right decision” for the judgment made by the judges. To thisend, the writer introduces in a systematic way how the legal formalism, sociology oflaw, judicial pragmatics, liberalism, realism jurisprudence, new analytical positivistjurisprudence and new natural law jurisprudence view the issue of certainty ofjudgment. On the bases of such analysis, the writer elaborate on the certainty ofjudgment, probes into the importance of certainty of law and judgment and thedifficulties faced by the certainty of judgment in the judicial practice. On the basesof such analysis, the writer draws the conclusion that there is no absolutely rightjudgment in the trial of cases, while there is only relatively right judgment. Suchrelatively right judgment is just the consensus of legal community. Even theconsensus of the legal community will have no “sole right decision”, on the contrary,it has only relatively agreeable category. If the judgment made by the judges is notwithin such relatively agreeable category, it will be treated as misjudged case.In Chapter Four, the writer elaborates on the justifiability to affixresponsibilities for wrongful conviction. The reasons causing the wrongfulconviction made by the judges are different, including legal culture, quality andproficiency of judges and lack of effective legal regulation relating to affixingresponsibilities for the judges. Then, the writer elaborates on the different factorswhich make it necessary to claim responsibilities for wrongful conviction, includingbasic theory, judicial factor, social factor and political factor.Chapter Five mainly involves the improvement of current legal regulationsrelating to control and management of wrongful conviction. Efforts are first made tointroduce the responsibility regulations of judges in major Western Countries, suchas America, Germany and Japan. Then, the writer analyses the problems that exist inthe current regulations in our country relating to affixing responsibilities forwrongful conviction. In the final part, the writer puts forward suggestionsconcerning how to improve the current regulations to regulate how to affixresponsibilities for wrongful convictions.更多还原